About your Search

20120928
20121006
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
says he wants the new economic patriotism that mitt romney calls the presidential campaign a battle for the soul of america. the candidates are not only racing to win an election but they are dueling over the mantle of patriotism with each claiming to stand for the true american values, the implication still beyond rhetoric and extend to their thinking about domestic and foreign policy which is what we are talking about this morning. next is a call from janice in louisiana. a democrat. good morning. >> caller: hello. yes, i would like the government to [inaudible] >> host: janice, are you still there? we lost her. apologies. let's move on to gary in eaton ohio. independent. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i think -- i feel that the constitution is there to tell the government what they are supposed to do. and like the guy that brought up water, the epa puts fluoride, they tell you have to have so much fluoride in water. there's something that it's in rat poison and that is why they're having to put so much of it in the water. now they've done a good job training at to water,
the candidates and the party should be discussing. next wednesday night the presidential debate begins. this for in our discussion with the obama and romney campaigns and as we've looked at the party platform, we have seen lots of attention being paid to child care and early learning that we might have expected. both in the presidential and also in the congressional races. given the research that points to the impact of attention to their earliest years of life, and given the of vintages of child care and helping low-income workers, we might have expected, for example, democrats to focus on child care after obama had been criticized for allowing flexibility for states and welfare work requirements. given the gender gap that the republicans face and need to overcome and given that child care is an issue many working mothers have been concerned about for a long time we might have expected detention to be paid by republicans. as i reported in the recent huffingtonpost.com peace and others talked about there's been insufficient attention paid by the campaigns in the opinion of many. the si
that the obama administration has declined to defend, the defense of marriage act. and president romney might well decide that he would defend the constitutionality of the statute, but it does not seem that that kind of social conservative question has a lot of civilians in something like a presidential debate. i think it will, other than health care, i can't see much happening. >> i think it -- i think it will not happen. and here's why. no major national political figure has attacked affirmative-action publicly since 1996 or four. it is kind of remarkable. the republicans to during the 90's for a while we're seeing some political profit in attacking affirmative action given the poll's don't do anymore. the democrats said maybe it's time to stop these racial preferences. the democratic council was inching down that road. but that's all gone. and i have spoken to republican politicians. why is that? and the answer was, we get so demonized if we ever raised voices against affirmative action. it's just not worth the cost, not worth the hassle. i think part of it, ironically, was there was an in
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3